As they should.
No article advocating creation "science" could ever pbutt peer review by real scientists, regardless of their opinions about evolution, simply because it would not contain any science.
Why should a magazine devoted to science give any credibility to something which is so obviously not scientific? Similarly, do you think that MacWorld magazine should carry articles extolling the wonders of Windows XP, or Biker Chicks carry articles by separation feminists, or golfing magazines carry articles saying how good it is to spend the weekends gardening, or gardening magazines carry articles saying that golf is more important than aphid control, or Catholic Weekly carry reviews of loveographic films?
Any publication has the right to refuse to publish material which contradicts or disagrees with its charter or editorial policy. That's what "editorial policy" means. The Smithsonian is a scientific organisation, so you would expect to see only science in its publications. JAMA is a medical journal, so you would only expect to see properly conducted medical science reported in its pages. The fact that The Lancet published Wakefield's crap shows that it is possible for bad science to fall through the cracks at times, and JAMA (or was it NEJM?) published the ludicrous "108,000 rests" rubbish that the quacks keep regurgitating.
Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD 9john Nope, as I've pointed out to your repebreastively, I've reviewed papers but not once ever received or spent a single penny which came from any pharmaceutical company. About the only money paid to academic...
JAMA's funding comes from a lot of subscriptions by a lot of doctors, hospitals, universities and public libraries, plus some advertising. The peer review panels are not employees of JAMA, so what would be the advantage to the members to favour JAMA's advertisers? -- Peter Bowditch aa #2243 To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com